Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 159 Fla. 574 - Custer v. State

Custer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
3
states following
December 1994
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 1994 · most notably 353 So. 2d 108 - Pasco Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Florida Public Emp. Rel. Comm. (1977), Commonwealth v. Lavalley (1991)

32 state decisions

130194719501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co. · Spafford v. Brevard County · People v. Wilmot · Stephen v. State · Wiggins & Johnson v. Williams

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"It is well settled that in a rape case the testimony of the prosecutrix or other witness is admissible in corroboration of her testimony to show that shortly after the commission of the alleged offense she made a complaint and when and where and to whom it was made. Such evidence is admissible and is admitted for the purpose of confirming the testimony of the ravished woman and not as proof that the crime was in fact committed, or as evidence of the truth of the facts complained of. Such evidence is merely to rebut the inference of consent that might be drawn from silence."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"The female outraged should seek the first opportunity to complain, and the fact that she does complain goes to the jury as evidence; but her detailed statement of the circumstances under which she was outraged cannot be given in evidence on the trial of the case by the party to whom she made the statement. Such testimony is hearsay, and it is calculated to confuse and mislead the jury, and is not permissible."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.